Global warming: Are we doomed? A poll.

[Peebothuhlu]

This sort of ignorant comment is not uncommon.  Yes, nuclear reactors produce dangerous waste, but so do coal plants, way, way, way more waste.  And coal plant waste isn't bottled up and contained.  Far, by orders of magnitude, more waste has been produced and widely distributed from burning fossil fuels than all nuclear plants combined, and that includes the few that have failed.  The science on this is definitive.  I'm currently working on a project to clean up all the solid waste from an old coal plant.  It's going to take years for this single plant and 10 of millions of $$.  Some dildos believe fossil fuel is clean and safe; little do they know.

Stuff it you know -nothing.....

Palisades Nuclear - sitting right on Lake Michigan has every ounce of waste it ever produced SITTING RIGHT ON SITE.

There has never been a plan to move it somewhere else - as it isn' t cost effective. The shit will sit there till it' s containment goes to shit - then it can turn the largest body of fresh water we have into an undrinkable radioactive sludge pond. 

You' re just happy to shit all over future generations so you can have cheap juice now...... "Let the grandkids deal with it" is your motto.....

*Reads OnlineBiker's post*

Okay... how to begin...

Your reply is innitially of a specific case. In a particular country, state, etc.

You do realise that the very 'Anti-nuke' sentiments you're espousing are pretty much the exact reason that said material simply isn't allowed to move about, right?

That people don't want ships to be built to carry large amounts of said waste, not trains, nor trucks etc such that said waste could indeed be moved from where it's produced to facilities that could render it into a safe storage medium?

It's the very same reason that kept the (Relativly) ancient Fukashima plant running well past its decomission date because people wouldn't allow for said material to be moved to some where else for storgae/disposal. The very same sentiments that prevented a more modern and disaster resistant plant from being built.


Then you talk about 'Cost effectivness'. Such costs can be worked into the plants actual innitial building estimates. Such costs are already high but the need for energy simply out weighs said effects.

You then swerve into a strange tangent and aspertion casting about what others want cheaply at the expense of others... While kind of ignoring the vbery acts of the oil and coal producers very actions to keep their products in exactly said state.

I'm, personally, not sure where to start a conversation on the matter with yourself OnlineBiker.

Help me out here.

Cheers.

Not at work.